First of all, there was only one emperor in Europe before Napoleon-the so-called Roman emperor.
Others can only be called kings, and I'll explain why.
We must start with Caesar himself.
Julius Caesar was born into a noble family, and served as treasurer, chief priest, chief justice, consul, inspector and dictator. In the first 60 years, he secretly formed the first tripartite alliance with Pompeii and crassus, and later became the governor of Gaul. It took him eight years to conquer all Gaul (about today's France), and also attacked Germany and Britain. In 49 BC, he led the army to occupy Rome, defeated Pompeii, and took power by one person.
Since Caesar won the civil war, the principality system has become a foregone conclusion in Rome. Although Caesar was assassinated (44 years ago, Caesar was assassinated by members of the Senate led by Brutu), his adopted son Octavian defeated Anthony to establish the Roman Empire and became the first imperial emperor. It should be noted here that the title of emperor did not exist in Europe before this. In Octavian's time, it was nominally * *.
So later generations called Octavian the first emperor of the Roman Empire.
Therefore, Augustus became synonymous with the emperor.
However, the saying "Caesar proclaimed himself emperor" was full of twists and turns-it happened 300 years later.
From AD 235 to AD 284, there were 26 emperors in Rome, who were in office for only two to three years on average. This chaotic situation is called crisis of the third century. In 284, Dairic first ascended the throne and carried out a series of reforms. First, he deposed some Roman * * * and national cultural relics. This is an imperial system. The most important thing is to establish the rule of four emperors.
Diocletian experienced constant wars in the first nine years of his rule, and he came to the conclusion that the empire was too big for an emperor to rule alone. Moreover, it is difficult for one person to resist the constant invasion of barbarians from the Rhine to the Egyptian border. The radical solution is to divide the empire into two parts and draw a straight line on the map to divide the empire into two parts.
The rule of four emperors means that the eastern and western parts of the empire are ruled by two main emperors respectively, and then each one is assisted by a deputy emperor. Among many titles of Roman emperors, Augustus was the most important, so he was awarded two main emperors, while two deputy emperors were awarded the lesser title Caesar. Diocletian's original intention was that when the main emperor retired or died, he was succeeded by the deputy emperor, and the successor main emperor appointed a new deputy emperor to solve the problem of succession to the throne. This system was formally implemented in 292 AD.
In fact, this system did not last long, mainly because of the problem of inheritance, which laid the groundwork for the later division of Rome.
In 306, Constantine I launched a civil war in the Western Empire, and 3 12 won. Later, he occupied the Eastern Empire in 324, and the empire was reunified until his death in 337-the end of the four emperors' rule.
But after that, the name of the deputy emperor Caesar became synonymous with the emperor.
However, in 395, the Roman Empire split in two and two European emperors appeared.
After the Roman Empire split in two, the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed by King Odiak of the Eastern Gothic Kingdom in 476. What Odiak did was to give the imperial emblem to Zhi Nuo, the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire at that time, and declared that the Western Rome no longer needed its own monarch, and only one emperor was enough in the world, and asked the Eastern Roman Empire to grant him political power in the Italian provinces. Legally speaking, this move is not the "demise of the Western Roman Empire" we learned from textbooks, but the unification of the Eastern and Western Roman empires!
In this way, for Europe before the Middle Ages and the Middle Ages, there was only one empire, the Roman Empire. This is unambiguous. There is no such thing as "the king's country will only have a chance to be crowned as an empire by the Vatican if it becomes the most powerful country". This is really a big joke.
Since then, at least in name and jurisprudence, the Eastern Roman emperor has suzerainty over the Western Empire. It was not until 800 A.D. that Charles I, King of Carolingian Dynasty of Frankish Kingdom, entered Rome and was crowned as "Roman Emperor" by Pope Leo III at that time. This move actually marks that the Western Empire has its own monarchy!
The empire reborn in 800 is a simple concept of the universe empire and the world empire. Whether there is a Senate or not is just a matter of form. The new empire also has things like parliament and Senate, and even the emperor is elected. The words on Charles I's imperial seal in 800 AD: "The rebirth of the Roman Empire" clearly expressed the correct meaning.
As far as Christianity is concerned, it is limited to the western part of Europe, and its divine right is self-contained. Since there is only one true God, then God must have an agent on earth, then the agent of theocracy is the Pope, and the agent of secular power is the emperor of the Roman Empire. The two men are equal at least in theory. Like China, there are no two days, no two masters, and God is with people.
Among the secular agents, there is only one person, and there is no second.
Therefore, in theory, any monarch is qualified to be an emperor, not necessarily limited to any country. Unfortunately, after Charles I (better known as Charlemagne) died, his son, Emperor Louis I, was too weak. As a result, Charlie's three grandchildren played unevenly, which led to the division of the empire. The boss got the central Frankish kingdom and gradually evolved into a series of territories-Italy, Burgundy and Lorraine; The third one got the Eastern Frankish Kingdom, which later evolved into Germany. Old four got the West Frankish Kingdom, which later evolved into France.
So Charles I and later Louis I, Rothschild I, Louis II, charles ii, Charles III and so on. They are all French Charles I, Louis I ... Charles III and German Charles I, Louis I ... Charles III. Whether it is Louis XIV and Charles X in France, or Charles VII and Louis IV in Germany (Karl and Lu in German respectively).
Devich), all in this order.
In the early days of the reconstructed Western Roman Empire, the throne was rotated among the kings of France, Germany and Italy, which was not fixed.
But interestingly, in the early Middle Ages, the Eastern Frankish/German king was the most powerful of all kings. After Otto I was crowned emperor in Rome in 962, the throne was held by the German king for a long time. In the end, it became a tradition, but this does not mean that other kings can't get their hands on it, because legally speaking, this emperor is the emperor of the Roman Empire and all kings.
God has the right to exist. Later, Spanish King Charles I was successfully elected as the emperor of the empire (the emperor was Charles V), which is proof. In addition, Duke of Cornwall Richard of Britain, King Alfonso of Castilla, William of the Netherlands and others all competed for the throne, and once won the support of some governors, but they all failed in the election.
Therefore, it is nonsense to say that "when the Vatican sealed the empire, the king was upgraded to the emperor of the holy Roman Empire". The empire was not sealed by the Vatican/Pope, and the king was not "upgraded" to emperor.
Besides, neither Isabella nor Elizabeth called the Queen. They can only be queens! In China, some people who translated into the Queen just translated blindly and didn't understand European history at all. This has nothing to do with whether you have contributed to the Vatican or not. On the contrary, Queen Victoria can be called the Queen, but understand that Queen Victoria refers to the Queen of India! She is also the queen of Britain in Europe!
For western Europe, there can only be one emperor at a time, that is, the emperor of the holy Roman Empire, and there can be no other emperors or queens!
This is why the emperor is called Kaiser in German-to prove his legitimacy as a European emperor and a Roman emperor.
This rule was first broken by the Russians. /kloc-after the conquest of Constantinople in 0/453, the Russians thought that they had inherited the orthodoxy of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire)-Moscow was the third Rome.
Tsar in Russian comes from the transliteration of Caesar in Latin-in fact, Russians used to call Byzantine emperors Tsars.
By Ivan IV, Russia had formally inherited the so-called Byzantine orthodoxy-so Ivan IV was crowned czar in 1547.
When Napoleon proclaimed himself emperor at the beginning of the19th century, the orthodox rule completely collapsed. After that, no one followed the old rules, and various German emperors and French emperors-Caesar's name also appeared in European countries-appeared as honorifics for emperors.
Have you explained in detail enough, my friend? I hope you are satisfied.
reference data
John Bagnell buried a history from the establishment of the Roman Empire to the death of Marcus Aurelius.
Edward gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire